• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaptainHowdy said:
Armed forces could make use of the AR-15 but they better have assault rifles in their arsenal as well.
Click to expand...

AR-15s would do. Many militaries andpolice forces around the world use semi auto weapons as the standard battle rifle or SWAT weapon.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Nobody said foreign-born or poor. I said "non-citizen" and "on public assistance." Big difference.


Restricting gun rights to citizens only isn't xenophobic. It's insanity to do otherwise. Would the French like millions of armed Germans living freely inside their borders? Do you think Mexico would like it if 13 million armed Americans were roaming around their country? They won't even let non-citizens buy real estate in their country!
Click to expand...

Even in the UK which has much stricter gun control than the USA anyone can apply for a license to own a gun. there isn't any question.j on the form about country of origin.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Even in the UK which has much stricter gun control than the USA anyone can apply for a license to own a gun. there isn't any question.j on the form about country of origin.
Click to expand...
Nor should there be since the presumption is that someone meeting all the requirements of obtaining a license to own firearms and store them at home would not be doing so in order to commit a crime. I'd be a lot more comfortable with that idea when it comes to my fellow Americans if they all had to jump through as many hoops before being able to buy a firearm from a relatively limited selection of such weapons.
 
crescent said:
It might have been higher - I don't know where they got the 3000 number from. I know there was a protest at the middle/junior high near my house, I could see and hear it from here. I know every high school in this school district had one as well. despite active discouragement from the district administration.

Nothing at my kid's elementary school. There are a lot more elementary schools than high schools. I am guessing that participation in the protests correlates with age, older kids more likley to participate. I would not be surprised if there were events in at least 50% of the high schools in the nation. I have not seen a single article about any high school that didn't have a protest.
Click to expand...

My kid's high school had an interesting one. The student council worked with the administration to have a podium available for people to speak. A counter demonstration took place, complete with students in NRA and Second Amendment shirts chanting 'USA! USA!' and running down the halls. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what they would be counter-demonstrating...maybe they support getting shot in school?
 
Thermal said:
My kid's high school had an interesting one. The student council worked with the administration to have a podium available for people to speak. A counter demonstration took place, complete with students in NRA and Second Amendment shirts chanting 'USA! USA!' and running down the halls. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around what they would be counter-demonstrating...maybe they support getting shot in school?
Click to expand...


I suspect they support wearing slogan tee shirts and running through the halls shouting.

If they are already NRA groupies that's about as much as you'll ever to be able to expect from them.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Btw. is there anyone here who thinks the US gun law is fine as it is and that no change is required ? Because IMHO that's what's going to change: nothing.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen anyone say that US laws are fine and don't need changed. People just disagree on what changes need to be made. A couple of changes that seem to be generally supported on the pro-Constitution side include expanding and tightening background checks and changes in HIPPA laws regarding previous mental illness treatment and background checks. A good idea in my opinion put forth by David French (I don't know if he actually originated the idea, but that's where I first saw it) is to pass laws allowing people's friends or families to go before a judge and have someone's ability to own or possess guns temporarily restricted, kind of like a restraining order in a domestic violence case. Something like this system could very well have prevented the Florida shooting by allowing all the people who were reporting the ******* to the authorities to go over the heads of the authorities who refused to do anything while still preserving due process.

The point is that there are plenty of ideas that could actually prevent violence. The whole ban guns nonsense is the equivalent of wearing a ribbon on the red carpet and thinking that you're accomplishing something. Being "concerned" about a issue may help people sleep better at night, but it does nothing to actually prevent shootings.

Although maybe we should pass more gun control laws, maybe we could make the rest of the country as safe as Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC.
 
cmikes said:
A couple of changes that seem to be generally supported on the pro-Constitution side include expanding and tightening background checks and changes in HIPPA laws regarding previous mental illness treatment and background checks.
Although maybe we should pass more gun control laws, maybe we could make the rest of the country as safe as Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC.
Click to expand...

"Pro constitution" side?

Seriously?

Are your rights being usurped because you cannot own machine guns? Sawed off shotguns? Hand grenades? Nerve gas? Artillery? No one who is taken seriously believes that you have a constitutional right to any of those weapons.

Do you have a constitutional right to own a handgun? The Supreme Court says yes, but it also says that restrictions on where and how that handgun may be employed.

So, people who understand the system of constitutional rights in America understand that there is an individual right to own deadly weapons, but that right may be restricted by placing restrictions (e.g. carry permits, trigger locks, licenses, lots of other things) on their use, and there are some weapons that represent a sufficiently severe risk to public safety that they cannot be owned by an individual at all. The "pro constitution" side wants to maintain the status quo with respect to rights.

There's a line to be drawn between those weapons that the government may forbid, and those weapons that the government may not forbid. The only debate is which side of the line high powered semi-automatic rifles (the AR-15 and its ilk) fall on. Those of us who think that the AR-15 falls on the "Ok to prohibit" side are firmly "pro-constitution", and we also have a history of Supreme Court jurisprudence on our side. We're good with both Miller and Heller.
 
MikeG said:
Yes he is. It couldn't be clearer what he is saying. Dave is suggesting that banning AR-15s alone would be wrong because there are lots of similar weapons, and thus discriminating against only one of them would be perverse. The suggestion is to ban the entire category of weapons to which the AR-15 belongs. I'm really struggling to see how anyone could be confused by that.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said, except I said it would be stupid to ban AR-15 whereas you say he's placing a value judgement by saying it would be "wrong." But the reason is the same--there are too many other guns that can do the exact same thing. Dave said that I was keen on taking away all AR-15s which is something I never said. Dave was wrong about what I said but it was clear what he was saying.

It's the next part where he says "But, of course, you knew that when you constructed your strawman; you seem perfectly able to classify people, so your pretend inability to classify guns has no credibility." THAT'S the part that makes no sense.
 
MikeG said:
The French don't want millions of armed French living inside their borders. Not in the sense that you mean armed.

Have you grasped Dave Rogers' point yet?
Click to expand...

He doesn't have a point. And now you seem to have lost one as well.
 
Thermal said:
The armed forces and SWAT, tbf.
Click to expand...

Is that a person owning them or the organization that they work for that owns them?

CaptainHowdy said:
No, I'm saying that classes of people who are restricted from gun ownership should be expanded. A convicted felon cannot currently own gun.
Click to expand...

Err... in some states, that's true. In an increasing number, that seems not to be the case, despite the federal law. Lots and lots of convicted felons are regaining their "civil right" to own guns in more recent years, though, apparently.

CaptainHowdy said:
A drug addict cannot. A person with a restraining order against them cannot. Are you OK with those classes of people not being able to buy a gun? If so, why is requiring a person to be a citizen before they can buy a gun a "dogwhistle"? How many other countries that allow private ownership of guns let non-citizens own a gun?
Click to expand...

Incidentally, shortly after Trump became President, the FBI apparently changed their longstanding position about having background checks reject people with a warrant out for them, apparently. Shall I take it that you're unhappy about that change, like many responsible gun owners other than the people currently in control of the NRA?
 
Last edited:
crescent said:
Here's what you said:
Click to expand...

Yes, these are possible suggestions. You do know that there are rights and privileges our government grants to citizens, naturalized citizens, and non-citizens and that they are not always the same?

Since you seem so keen on giving the right to bear arms to everybody physically within the borders of the United States, why don't you tell us why naturalized citizens and non-citizens should be able to own guns. Do you extend this right to people here illegally?
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed. In this country, anyone can own firearms (handguns are forbidden) so long as are able to obtain a Firearms Licence. This includes, all citizens, residents and immigrants over the age of 16. All they need do is...

1. Pass the "fit and proper" person test (which excludes criminals, ex-cons, the mentally ill, drug addicts, people with a history of violence, people with a restraining order against them, etc)
Click to expand...
Why don't you just come out a say "black people?" We can all hear those dog whistles loud and clear
 
johnny karate said:
crescent already established you explicitly referred to foreign-born people.

Also, this:


So yeah, no guns for the foreign-born or poor. You explicitly made those arguments.



I like how you continue to pretend that you didn’t move the goal posts and expect me not to notice.
Click to expand...
OK, your turn to tell us why non-citizens should have the right to bear arms.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
No, I'm saying that classes of people who are restricted from gun ownership should be expanded. A convicted felon cannot currently own gun. A drug addict cannot. A person with a restraining order against them cannot. Are you OK with those classes of people not being able to buy a gun? If so, why is requiring a person to be a citizen before they can buy a gun a "dogwhistle"? How many other countries that allow private ownership of guns let non-citizens own a gun?
Click to expand...
Usually whenever someone refers to other countries, it's pointed out that this is not another country, and that Americans should not be bound by the way other countries (such as those that control guns) behave. Now suddenly we look to other countries? Why shouldn't a legal immigrant be as able to own or use a gun as a citizen? What if a citizen marries a non citizen (as I once did)? My ex wife was a Swiss immigrant for many years before she became a citizen. Oh wait, she was Swiss and Christian and white, so I don't suppose you mean that kind of non-citizen, do you?
 
Last edited:
CaptainHowdy said:
........why don't you tell us why naturalized citizens....... should be able to own guns......
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the USA operates some sort of apartheid system where citizens are graded, and treated differently as a result of that grade? Most civilised countries try to treat all of their citizens equally. Is this what is meant by "American exceptionalism"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom